Search Results

The phonological structure of Latin serves as the starting point for the account. Of particular interest is the organization of the syllable in Latin, and especially the onset, since syllabic structure plays a key role in shaping patterns of vowel prosthesis. Developments in pre‐Classical Latin are also explored as these point to the ongoing dynamics of change leading to vowel prosthesis.

This chapter explores some determining factors for the development of indefinites participating in Negative Concord from Latin to Romance (with special attention to Old French and Old Italian). In particular, the discussion concentrates on the subclass of Romance n-words formed with the negative morpheme ne- / ni- < Latin nec. In its role as building block of the new indefinites, nec is a negative scalar focus particle meaning ‘even not’ (a use that first emerges in Post-Classical Latin); the cardinal numeral unus provides the scalar end point. With nec specific syntactic patterns are observed that quite systematically result in the redundant expression of negation, this occurring already in Classical Latin. These structures are easily prone to reanalysis once the prerequisites for Negative Concord are present. The chapter provides a reconstruction of how the facts emerging from Latin may help toward an improved understanding of optional Negative Concord in Early Romance.

This chapter is a study of Latin indefinites in direct-negation contexts. These indefinites are interesting from a theoretical point of view because of their extreme dependence on the surrounding structural conditions, and because of the variety of their instantiations in different linguistic systems. Two phenomena of Latin grammar with wide-ranging implications for the development of Romance indefinites are discussed: the syntax of negation and the diachronic pathways followed by indefinites interacting with it. Latin is a Double Negation language, whereas Early Romance exhibits Negative Concord. The study proposes that this typological shift is linked to another major change from Latin to Romance, namely the change from OV to VO. Late Latin is analyzed as a ‘concealed’ nonstrict Negative Concord language, in which restrictions in the use of the ‘old’ negative indefinites emerge, as well as new patterns with (new) negative-polarity items.

This chapter starts with a description of the core facts concerning the VPAux/AuxVP alternation in the history of Latin. In the case of modal verbs and infinitives, there is a clear decline of the head-final order VPAux, whereas Late Latin BE-periphrases surprisingly prefer this order. Against the backdrop of these observations, the discussion then turns to the analysis of Classical and Late Latin clause structure. It is proposed that during the transition from Classical to Late Latin, a major parametric change took place related to the way the clausal EPP-requirement is satisfied. In the earlier grammar (‘Grammar A’), the entire VP undergoes A-movement to the high T-domain, resulting in the characteristic VPAux word order. In the later grammar (‘Grammar B’) the EPP-requirement is met by means of verb movement, with the VP staying in situ. In this grammar VPAux-orders are derived through roll-up movement, which is incompatible with the VOAux-pattern.

This chapter is concerned with the diachrony of the Latin word order pattern ‘verb-object-auxiliary’ (VOAux). In the classical and late classical period (c.100 BC–200 AD), this order is productively available, but it is by and large absent in Late Latin. It is suggested that this change is related to the order VPAux being derived differently in Classical and in Late Latin. More specifically, it is proposed that only Late Latin VPAux-clauses are derived by means of roll-up movement, which gives rise to restrictions on possible word orders inside the verb phrase (Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts’s Final-Over-Final Constraint). In addition, it is proposed that this difference between Classical and Late Latin is an indirect result of an independent change, namely, the incorporation of the pre-verbal sentential negator non into the hierarchically highest verb, an evolution which can be considered part of Jespersen’s Cycle.

This chapter discusses the two indefinites that have been treated as specific indefinites in scholarship on Classical Latin: quidam ‘a certain’ and aliquis ‘some (or other)’. While with quidam the referent is introduced as known to the speaker, aliquis expresses ignorance on the part of the speaker with respect to the exact identity of the discourse referent. As concerns quidam, the pragmatic conditions it obeys in Classical and Late Latin are examined, and possible causes for the fact that it is not continued in Romance are discussed. In the case of aliquis, it is argued that a better description of its semantic properties can be reached by treating it as an epistemic indefinite. In Late Latin some of the distributional constraints to which it was subject in the Classical language disappear: aliquis extends into polarity contexts, preluding the behavior of its Romance continuations.

This chapter summarizes the main conclusions reached through the investigation of Latin indefinites and of their Romance continuations. In the case studies under analysis, the process of change originates from phenomena taking place already in Late Latin. In particular, developments affecting the syntax of negation in Late Latin play a fundamental role, triggering lexical renewal and functional shifts in the domain of indefinites. It is frequently the case that Romance languages, while sharing significant similarities, differ profoundly from Classical Latin: for the cases discussed here, they ‘differentiate in parallel’ because they inherit from Late Latin the fundamental prerequisites for later changes. The results of this study, thanks to the interplay of theoretical and diachronic linguistics, confirm the systematic nature of change at the syntax–semantic interface.

The aim of the book is set: to study the morphosyntax of events of transition cross-linguistically, focusing on Latin and comparing it with other languages. The methodology is also introduced, involving a deductive approach to the grammar of unspoken languages, which in part overcomes the problem of the lack of negative evidence. In the case at hand, a particular theory of the morphosyntactic expression of events of transition generates the prediction that Latin, being a satellite-framed language, should allow adjectival resultative constructions. This prediction is tested through corpus research (Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina 2) for the period of Early and Classical Latin (third century BC to second century AD). Additional sources of data are listed. The chapter concludes with a roadmap of the six remaining chapters and the appendix to section 5.2.1.

This chapter discusses some methodological aspects of the corpus work that constitutes the empirical foundation of this book. It starts by addressing the question why one would want to use corpus methods in the first place. Next, the Latin text corpus, which is reported on in the upcoming chapters, is presented on. To show that this corpus can indeed be considered a reliable source of information on how the Latin language evolved in the period from 200 BC to 600 AD, a case study is offered on the diachronic development of a particular type of periphrastic construction with esse ‘be’. Specifically, it is shown that the spread of future perfects of the type amatus fuero can be nicely fitted onto an S-curve, suggesting that the corpus reliably reflects the actual spoken language. The chapter concludes with some remarks on the distinction between synchronic and diachronic variation.